Pentecostals who deny the INITIAL physical evidence of the infilling/baptism of the Holy Ghost of speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance

Posted by Brody Pope in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

I’ve noticed that their are many “ministers” who claim to be Pentecostal, yet they are denying that the INITIAL physical evidence of the infilling/baptism of the Holy Ghost is speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance. I’m use to seeing people who aren’t Pentecostal preach against it, but if you’re a member of the mainline Pentecostal churches, small Pentecostal conferences, or independent Pentecostal churches, then why would you deny Scripture? Why would anybody of any denomination deny Scripture? I see it rather easily.

John Kissinger [03/12/2016 7:52 AM]
Historical chart http://cupandcross.com/diamonds-in-the-rough-n-ready-pentecostal-series-renewed/

Peter A Vandever [03/12/2016 7:58 AM]
Alot of people here are NOT really Pentecostal!

Henry Volk [03/12/2016 8:01 AM]
https://theologyinperspective.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/the-origins-of-modern-tongue-speech-part-1/

John Kissinger [03/12/2016 8:11 AM]
Corey Forsyth Not much record about this in America. First person to speak in tongues in the Assemblies of God was William Jethro Walthall of the Holiness Baptist Churches of Southwestern Arkansas. Then we have the Molokan immigrants in L.A. (known to have spoken in tongues in Russia under the Old Faith movement there) and the Irvingite (known to have spoken in tongues at Edward Irving’s Scottish revival meetings). 1854 – V. P. Simmons and Robert Boyd who were Irvingites reported tongue speaking during Moody’s meetings. Of curse, there are many reported in various European countries all through church history, but as far as America goes this seems to be it (documented). Dr. HAROLD HUNTER builds an excellent case in The FORGOTTEN ROOTS OF THE AZUSA STREET REVIVAL http://cupandcross.com/the-forgotten-roots-of-the-azusa-street-revival/ A detailed account of the 19th century Irvingite Church and its founder Edward Irving; who they were, what they believed, and why they are considered the source of the modern tongues movement is found here http://charlesasullivan.com/1826/the-irvingites-and-the-gift-of-tongues/

Jimmy Humphrey [03/12/2016 8:12 AM]
I’m Pentecostal but I don’t believe speaking in tongues has to be “the initial physical evidence.” Indeed, Jesus said the sign of the baptism wasn’t any particular manifestation, but rather, it was the demonstration of power. “You will receive power…”

John Kissinger [03/12/2016 8:14 AM]
Jimmy Humphrey I am afraid this makes you NOT Pentecostal?

Corey Forsyth [03/12/2016 8:23 AM]
Well since Brody opened up the can of worms… LOL Let’s define tongues. Are we talking about a heavenly prayer language that is personal to each or are we talking about the Upper Room encounter where otherwise ignorant people begin speaking in foreign languages to spread the Gospel to other nationalities? The problem I have with tongues is the ease of manipulation and the focus put on it from an emotional standpoint. I do not deny the gift of speaking in tongues in existence or operation, however, I see a lot of gifts left out because they are as easily mimicked. And before anyone tries to bite with overly anxious fangs, I am not indicating that the majority of tongue talkers are fake but enough are that cause concern and caution from me. Let the hate begin… LOL

Brody Pope [03/12/2016 8:51 AM]
So its safe to say that if you don’t believe that tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, then you’re not a TRUE Pentecostal.

Stan Wayne [03/12/2016 9:01 AM]
I agree with IPE and think without it the dilution of congregations into mainline evangelicalism is evident.

Unfortunately it is a doctrine based on reasoning from Acts 2, 8, 9, 10,11, 19 rather than overt statement

Christopher Hart [03/12/2016 9:28 AM]
I’m not sure where you have seen this, or if perhaps you have mistaken the position some hold (like myself). I do not any longer believe that Scripture teaches tongues as the (exclusive) initial evidence of a believer being filled with the Spirit. An evience, yes. The evidence, no.

However, I do believe tongues are available to all believers through Spirit fullness/baptism, and that they are intended to be normative in the Spirit filled life, as well as in the life and ministry of the church (along with all the other gifts). So, I certainly don’t preach or teach against tongues. Rather, like Paul, I would that all should speak in tongues.

Terry Wiles [03/12/2016 9:30 AM]
Perhaps this link will clarify that speaking in tongues is one of the fundamental differences of the Pentecostal Movement that began in the early 20th century.

https://ifphc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=history.main

John Kissinger [03/12/2016 9:41 AM]
Christopher Hart wrote “The Bible no where teaches that tongues are THE initial evidence of Spirit baptism” – WRONG!

Timothy Carter [03/12/2016 9:58 AM]
Brody Pope, to say, that a person is not Pentecostal because he or she does not understand or have acceptance for the traditional, Mainline view on, initial evidence, is not a fair statement. It seems, that it would be better, to say, “The believe of Holy Spirit baptism, without initial evidence of speaking in tongues, is non-traditional.”

Being Pentecostal, is much more than believing a specific point about tongues.

To say that someone does not believe the Scripture, based on the point of initial evidence of Holy Spirit baptism, is reaching too far.

Yes, I believe that, speaking in tongues is the initial evidence.

With this statement, with this belief, we are stating, gently , yet very clearly, that if a person has not yet, had the experience of speaking in tongues, then they are not baptized in Holy Spirit.

This, does not mean, they are not Pentecostal. It means, they are not baptized in the Holy Spirit.

However, we must understand, that this belief in initial evidence of the baptism is speaking in tongues, comes from, a testimonial, presentation of individual experiences, people in the Bible have had.

We can’t find a 1-2-3, step program, like we can for salvation. Therefore, this point will forever, be debated.

People will forever use, “Experience Theology” ( made-up term for clarity), for this point.

Brody Pope [03/12/2016 10:00 AM]
Its just something that’s got me concerned.

Timothy Carter [03/12/2016 10:07 AM]
The best historical, and biblical View, for answering the question, “Is tongues the initial evidence?”

John A. Lombard Jr. Speaking in Tongues: Initial Evidence of Spirit Baptism?

Timothy Carter [03/12/2016 10:17 AM]
To say, ” Tongues is not the initial evidence.” Based on personal experience is, a weak argument.

Just as much, as it is a weak argument come to say, ” tongues is the initial evidence.” Based on personal experience.

We need to focus on the Word not personal experience.

To say, ” Tongues is not the initial evidence, because, many people fake, speaking in tongue,” is a weak argument.

Preaching can be faked, just watch TBN. Does this mean that preaching is not real?

Miracles, can be faked, look at historical records. We will find, throughout history, that so-called, Miracle healers have been con men.

Does this mean that Miracles are fake? Absolutely, not.

We do not get our understanding, for the gift of Miracles, or the calling to preach, from experience. We understand and accept both of these as well as, all the others , as being, created, and ordained by God in Scripture.

John Kissinger [03/12/2016 10:43 AM]
Christopher Hart The passages from Acts and other NT books have been already supplied in this discussion – pls see above. There is also the historical contribution of Pentecostal authors and ministers in 19-20c. America who all agreed even before Parham and Seymour that the Bible is quite clear on speaking in tongues being the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. A few early examples were already listed here with dates, chart and full bibliography: http://cupandcross.com/diamonds-in-the-rough-n-ready-pentecostal-series-complete/

Thus, currently and historically, the modern day Pentecostal community around the globe has long agreed on the initial evidence from being the Biblical foundation of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost baptism. This agreement has further concurred with virtually all historical examples throughout church history that date as far back as the Day of Pentecost 2,000 years ago.

It is understandable that some may have an interpretation of these passages that deviate from the sound Pentecostal doctrine and its historical development. Such deviations are minor in comparison to the broader Pentecostal movement of almost 700-800 million strong. The ones who fall in this minority are more than welcome to start new threads on each of the passages they are concerned with and explain their deviating interpretation for the group to take under consideration.

Nelson Banuchi [03/12/2016 11:09 AM]
Questions: Does classical Pentecostalism teach that professing Christians who do *not* speak in tongues:

1. are carnal, not being filled with the Spirit?

2. live as sub-Christian believers?

3. raise doubt that they are even saved in the first place?

4. are more liable to easily fall into sin or apostasy?

Thanks!

Christopher Hart [03/12/2016 11:30 AM]
1. Yes — though depending on which vein, some would have emphasized their not being sanctified which would have meant to them not Spirit filled either.

2. No, but could mistaken for such.

3. No.

4. Yes, but again one side would emphasize sanctification on this point more than Spirit baptism itself.

Ben Wilson [03/12/2016 11:51 AM]
Here’s a list of mighty men/women of God, past and present, just bubbling over with the Holy Spirit. . . as evidenced by the fact that they all have spoken in tongues:

William Branham A.A. Allen Jim Bakker Tammy Faye Bakker Jimmy Swaggart Donny Swaggart Paul Crouch Jan Crouch Gene Scott Earl Paulk Benny Hinn Paula White Ted Haggard Roberts Liardon Bill Sharp Marvin Gorman Clarence McClendon Mike Murdock John Hagee John Paulk

Since it can’t be made from scripture, it certainly would be easier to make the argument that speaking in tongues is evidence that the speaker is chock full of the Holy Spirit. . . . . if a few more prominent Pentecostals/Charismatics listed above would have lived consistent overcoming Godly lives. . . . .

John Kissinger [03/12/2016 11:53 AM]
Christopher Hart There’s no problem with your interpretation except that it is your private interpretation and is invalid for the whole Pentecostal movement worldwide. That’s all!

John Kissinger [03/12/2016 12:02 PM]
Jimmy Humphrey Again wrong on McPherson and 4-square

Terry Wiles [03/12/2016 1:14 PM]
What the Foursquare church believes. https://www.foursquare.org/about/what_we_believe

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit

We believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is an experience that follows salvation. All believers have God’s Spirit within them. Holy Spirit baptism empowers believers to exalt Jesus, to live lives of holiness, and to be witnesses of God’s saving grace. We believe that those who experience Holy Spirit baptism today will experience it in the same manner that believers experienced it in the early church; in other words, we believe that they will speak in tongues—languages that are not known to them (Acts 1: 5, 8; 2:4).

Terry Wiles [03/12/2016 1:18 PM]
What the Assemblies of God believes. http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/statement_of_fundamental_truths/sft_full.cfm#7

7. The Baptism in the Holy Spirit

All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian Church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry. •Luke 24:49 [KJV/NIV] •Acts 1:4 [KJV/NIV] •Acts 1:8 [KJV/NIV] •1 Corinthians 12:1-31 [KJV/NIV]

This experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth. •Acts 8:12-17 [KJV/NIV] •Acts 10:44-46 [KJV/NIV] •Acts 11:14-16 [KJV/NIV] •Acts 15:7-9 [KJV/NIV]

With the baptism in the Holy Spirit come such experiences as:

•an overflowing fullness of the Spirit, John 7:37-39 [KJV/NIV], Acts 4:8 [KJV/NIV] •a deepened reverence for God, Acts 2:43 [KJV/NIV], Hebrews 12:28 [KJV/NIV] •an intensified consecration to God and dedication to His work, Acts 2:42 [KJV/NIV] •and a more active love for Christ, for His Word and for the lost, Mark 16:20 [KJV/NIV]

8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit

The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance. •Acts 2:4 [KJV/NIV]

The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose and use. •1 Corinthians 12:4-10 [KJV/NIV] •1 Corinthians 12:28 [KJV/NIV]

Terry Wiles [03/12/2016 1:20 PM]
What a local church practices may not be in line with the statement of belief of the denomination or movement. However, generally an affirmation of alignment with the statement of faith is required.

Terry Wiles [03/12/2016 1:25 PM]
What the Church of God in Christ believes http://www.cogic.org/our-foundation/what-we-believe/

THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST

We believe that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is an experience subsequent to conversion and sanctification and that tongue-speaking is the consequence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost with the manifestations of the fruit of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23; Acts 10:46, 19:1-6). We believe that we are not baptized with the Holy Ghost in order to be saved (Acts 19:1-6; John 3:5). When one receives a baptismal Holy Ghost experience, we believe one will speak with a tongue unknown to oneself according to the sovereign will of Christ. To be filled with the Spirit means to be Spirit controlled as expressed by Paul in Ephesians 5:18-19. Since the charismatic demonstrations were necessary to help the early church to be successful in implementing the command of Christ, we therefore, believe that a Holy Ghost experience is mandatory for all men today.

tj [03/14/2016 3:05 PM]
in I Cor 1:2 Paul says he wrote “to the Church of God which is at Corinth” and then in verse :10 he talks to the “brethren.” So Paul is talking to believers. In ! Cor 14:5 Paul says, “Now I wish you all spoke in tongues.” Paul is telling believers he wishes they all spoke in tongues – so not all believers did…or do. But then, thats just what the Bible says, you mansplainers have different views.

40 Comments

  • Reply April 20, 2016

    Rev. Jerry VanTilburg

    I firmly believe the under lying reason for not believing in speaking in tongues as the initial physical evidence of be baptized in the Holy Spirit is unbelief. Everything else superfluous.

  • Reply June 27, 2016

    Nathan Hellrung

    Do you believe that a believer must speak in tongues to truly be saved then?

  • Reply June 27, 2016

    Mary Ellen Nissley

    Nathan, that’s a Jesus-Only belief. Most Pentecostals who believe in the initial evidence of tongues do not believe one must speak in tongues to prove their salvation.

    • Reply June 28, 2016

      Shannon P Smith

      That seems like a contradictory statement. Isn’t “evidence” used as “proof”? Doesn’t “initial” make it the ‘proof that comes first’?

      Not trying to troll, I’m just not sure that I understand what you are saying.

    • Reply June 29, 2016

      Mary Ellen Nissley

      Shannon P Smith No. You don’t understand. The idea of tongues being the “initial evidence” is not the evidence of salvation, but of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
      And no, new believers do NOT automatically receive the Holy Spirit at salvation. Read Acts 8.

    • Reply June 29, 2016

      Shannon P Smith

      Mary Ellen Nissley – do you believe the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation? Can someone be saved without the Holy Spirit?

    • Reply June 29, 2016

      Mary Ellen Nissley

      Jesus said to his disciples that the Holy Spirit was WITH them, but was not yet IN them. Technically, they “had the Holy Spirit”, long before they were baptized in the Holy Ghost on the day of pentecost.
      No one can be born again without the activity of the Holy Ghost working in them. But the Holy Ghost works in us not only after we are born again, but before we are born again!

      The Samaritans were truly born again before they received the Holy Ghost baptism. How do we know? Because of how the Apostles handled the situation.

      Look at Acts 19. When Paul found believers who had not yet received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, he asked them, unto whom then were you baptized? Evidently, the Holy Ghost baptism was expected to happen at the time of water baptism.

      But those believers at Ephesus had not been baptized correctly yet in water… so Paul corrected that part… and the rest happened as was expected in the first-century church: the Holy Ghost fell upon them.

      Back to Acts 8 and the Samaritans. The apostles did not correct the water baptism, because that part was done correctly.

      Now, these were bona fide believers in Christ as the Messiah. That’s why their water baptism was valid.

      HOW can one be born again, without having received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as the Samaritans evidently were?

      Now, if the apostles had the same theology most churches have today, they would NOT have gone down there to pray for them to receive the Holy Ghost! Instead, they would have gone down there to reassure them that they automatically had received the Holy Ghost, without any outward evidence!

      But notice, the apostles had no such doctrine.

  • Reply June 28, 2016

    Louise Cummings

    The Bible tells you how to be saved. The Jesus told Hid disciples to tarry in Jerusalem until they be Endued with Power From On High. Then they did what He said. And The Holy Ghost came and they all were Filled. He said when He Comes You will have Power to Heal in Jesus Name and all things Jesus said they would do. Because He was The Comforter Jesus said He would Sene. He said When He Comes He shall Guide You into All Truths And Righteousness. The Bible Said ye must be born again. You must do that to get to Heaven. But don’t you want the Comforter to guide you. To cast out Devils. All the things Jesus said you could do with the Holy Ghost.

  • Reply June 30, 2016

    Jon Ray

    John Ruffle It seems historically that when we turn from classic Pentecostal theology to a broader theological view we lose all of our Pentecostal theology and start theologizing about things that have nothing to do with our faith John Conger John Ruffle CrossTheology Ricky Grimsley

  • Reply June 30, 2016

    CrossTheology

    I personally would not have made it into a doctrine. I’m hesitant about it. I do absolutely believe that often it was the initial sign but not always. For others it was prophecy etc. 🙂

  • Reply June 30, 2016

    Jon Ray

    You wouldnt make speaking of tongues a doctrine? #strange

  • Reply June 30, 2016

    Jon Ray

    Not so fast John Ruffle CrossTheology If you start taking away the doctrine of speaking in tongues from Pentecostalism, what do you have left beside jumping around?

  • Reply June 30, 2016

    CrossTheology

    I’m talking from a Christian perspective, not from a Pentecostal-denominational perspective 🙂

  • Reply June 30, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    I’ve longed argued that Pentecostals who deny speaking in tongues as important are simply Charismatics. I’ve commented on your blog before article that said this is true Pentecostalism or something similar that had nothing to do with true Pentecostalism. IMO a Pentecostal without tongues is just glorified baptist and I can elaborate why. But when writing blogs under the title Pentecostal perhaps we should depend on a more deep Pentecostal research and not on mare evangelical or even catholic sources CrossTheology

  • Reply June 30, 2016

    CrossTheology

    Are you referring to this article, Troy Day? https://crosstheology.wordpress.com/what-do-pentecostals-believe/ Otherwise I don’t know what you are talking about…

  • Reply June 30, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Yes Tom thanks. I am a Pentecostal and this does not even begin to describe what I believe 🙂

    • Reply June 30, 2016

      CrossTheology

      I grew up in Pentecostal churches and I study at the AoG seminary in Brussels. Of course you can have a different opinion. 🙂

  • Reply June 30, 2016

    Tim Renneberg

    I’m not sure that the denial of initial evidence… or placing less significance on tongues (prayer language or otherwise) places one in the Charismatic camp. Pentecostals trace their origins (North American pentecostals) to Charles Parham in Topeka, Kansas and the Azusa St. Outpouring. Charismatics trace their roots to the late 50s and early 60s renewal in the Catholic and Anglican church. Both camps generally have very strong “initial evidence of tongues” beliefs/statements.

    • Reply June 30, 2016

      Mary Ellen Nissley

      Tim Renneberg, Pentecostal roots go much further back than the 1906 Azusa Street outpouring. The Second Great Awakening saw some pentecostal activity… and out of that came the “Grandmother of the Pentecostal Movement”, Maria Woodworth Etter. In her meetings during the 1880’s, there were dramatic healings, trances, prophecies and tongues. And the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) has its roots in a movement that began in the Appalachians, in the 1880’s, completely isolated from Etter’s influence. This movement began experiencing tongues at least a decade before Azusa Street happened.

    • Reply June 30, 2016

      Mary Ellen Nissley

      And I don’t care what “camp” deniers of the initial evidence of tongues want to be placed in. It’s false doctrine.
      If the apostles had held the doctrine that one can receive the Holy Ghost without any outward evidence, they would never have made that trip to Samaria in Acts 8.

    • Reply June 30, 2016

      Tim Renneberg

      Did you read my post? It seems like you missed the point.

    • Reply June 30, 2016

      Mary Ellen Nissley

      After I posted my reply, I read back over the conversation and realized I didn’t quite stay on point there… sorry.
      And you are correct, both those who self-identify as Charismatic and those who call themselves Pentecostals really usually do have a strong belief in the initial evidence of tongues.

      I come from a very strong Mennonite (anti-Pentecostal) heritage, into the old-fashioned Pentecostals… but I spent about 4 years in the Kenneth Hagin camp just to try to save my marriage (it didn’t work.) So I have experience in three major camps.

    • Reply June 30, 2016

      Tim Renneberg

      4 years is a long time to spend in the Hagin camp… a plethora of error/false teaching to wade through there

    • Reply June 30, 2016

      Mary Ellen Nissley

      Sigh. I sat there like a good little girl, flipping madly through my Bible, reading all the verses the Holy Spirit was reminding me of, that contradicted what they were preaching. It was a harsh training ground.

  • Reply June 30, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    All good points Tim Tom Seems though that denying the evidence carries much more theological weight than over accenting the doctrine of tongues BTW prayer language is a term of 70s charismatics and was rarely connected with the origins of modern day Pentecostalism

  • Reply November 21, 2016

    David M. Hinsen

    Interesting

  • Reply November 21, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Brody Pope brought this important topic to the group’s attention. It’s his birthday today

  • Reply November 21, 2016

    Brody Pope

    If you deny speaking in tongues being the initial physical evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost, you’re not a Pentecostal.

  • Reply November 21, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    it’s not enough to just believe it either. You have to experience and practice it…

  • Reply November 21, 2016

    David M. Hinsen

    Amen

  • Reply November 21, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    A step further: tongues are the exclusive initial evidence of a believer being filled with the Spirit. I see this was discussed at one point with Christopher Hart

  • Reply November 21, 2016

    Tim Renneberg

    If we are equating the baptism of (in) the Holy Spirit and the filling of the Spirit, than yes, tongues are the initial physical evidence, but not necessarily the only evidence, and it shouldn’t be the only evidence.

  • Reply November 21, 2016

    Michael Marquez

    Agreed. All mainline Pentecostal bodies AOG, COG, COGC, COGP, IPHC, ICFG, PCOG, etc etc taught that tongues was the initial evidence of being Baptized in the Holy Spirit. That belief changed with the Charismatic Movement.

  • Reply November 22, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    What virtually all Pentecostal denominations believe concerning Speaking in Other Tongues as the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/what-virtually-all-pentecostal-denominations-believe-concerning-speaking-in-other-tongues-as-the-initial-evidence-of-the-baptism-with-the-holy-spirit/

  • Reply November 22, 2016

    Dan Irving

    Yes; most of the major Pentecostal denominations affirm Tongues as Initial Evidence in their Statements of Faith. However, walk into many of AOG, COG, etc. etc., churches today, and they will oppose you. The doctrine is becoming increasingly unpopular among both clergy and laity.

  • Reply November 23, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Wish that was the case with entire sanctification Terry Wiles

    • Reply November 23, 2016

      Terry Wiles

      Lol. I would compile a similar list concerning sanctification but I have yet to come to an understanding about what certain groups believe. I.e. Their doctrinal statements make little sense to me except they believe something subjective happens sometime to some people.

    • Reply November 23, 2016

      Varnel Watson

      Cant wait for this one. Been waiting for a while to see it

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.